Pro-life/ Pro-choice?

[thefinerthingsinlife]

I am a very vocal supporter of pro-choice. It's a women's body therefore it is her choice whether she continues with a pregnancy.

I've come across alot of pro-life supporters lately who put the right of the baby above that of the mother, which I think is madness.

I was wondering what everyone else thought

I agree with wigglesrock - I think induction would be horrific

Don't apologise - I'm sorry for missing that somehow - can't think how I did. But it is a very good illustration of how women aren't actually in control of their conception a lot of the time. And fwiw, I agree with you that a foetus is a parasite. It is, if you take all the emotion out of it

OK, I've not thought about it properly, can see it's not a good idea.

prince h, what a sad tale. i'm so sorry. how do you relate to it all now? clearly your pov is based on rather more than opinion; and you are doing something useful in relating it to us and, hopefully, educating those of us on here who still think that their opinion, uninformed in some cases by little actual experience, is more important/valid than an unhappily pregnant woman's. (in earlier posts i stated my position as one of support for abortion; i include in this very late ones.) but, how are you about it, in yourself?

PrinceHumperdink I am very sorry that you had such a traumatic series of experiences, from the rape to the appalling treatment by HCPs, and everything in between and after. I can certainly understand and respect your strongly held views on this subject, which is emotive for everyone and must be so much more so for anyone with personal experience of it.

But just as you say that those who oppose legal abortion (and I'm not one; I'm conflicted but believe that it needs to be legal) tend to base their view on an "ideal world" scenario, I think it's equally naive of those on the other side of the debate to say that the "all the way to term" issue is a moot point because they assume that every woman would avoid it if possible, or give it due consideration before deciding it was the right option.

If abortion were available on demand and with no restrictions, to 40 weeks, there in all likelihood would be some people who terminated at that point because a late scan showed it wasn't the gender they wanted, or because they wanted to hurt the baby's father, or because they changed their mind at the last minute about taking on the workload of caring for an infant. People have killed their actual, post-birth, we-all-agree-it's-a-baby-now babies for these reasons before, so why would we figure that the ethically uncomfortable situation of an abortion at 40 weeks, for no particular medical or emergency reason, would just conveniently fail to come up?

I understand the argument that as long as the foetus resides in the woman's body - even if it's at the point where it could survive outside it - it is entirely her right to abort that foetus, even at 40 weeks. I don't agree, but I do get the logic of that viewpoint. But if anyone is advocating for "on demand, for any reason, all the way to term", they must be willing to accept that the 40 week scenario will come up, and not just when there's a medical reason or the woman has agonised over it. It's not a red herring to discuss the ethical implications of that situation. It's only hypothetical right now because the law imposes the limits that it does.

I've thought about this a lot in relation to Catholic teaching as it's one of the fundamental reasons (along with attitudes to homosexuality) that I can't fully embrace the Catholic faith I was baptised into. There's a lot of good in Catholicism and I'm really attracted to being part of a faith-based community, but I can't get past the attitude to abortion.

One of the teachings that I do agree with is that we cannot know the point at which the foetus becomes a human. Most of you won't believe that this is determined by God, but it is one of those questions that science can't really answer. When we think of our own children, we can all think of aspects of their personality that were unique and special to them from their first day of life, but at what point did these originate. The day they were conceived? Week 12? Week 24? It's from this belief that the Catholic teaching on abortion proceeds - we can't know the point at which this embryo becomes a human life, so we can't know if we are taking a human life if we abort it.

Catholic teaching on sex and relationships is therefore - at least - consistent. That sexual intercourse should take place only within marriage (the implication is that it is therefore consensual, which is not necessarily true, as we know) so that - in theory - any life which is procreated as a result can be loved, cherished and welcomed into the world. Hardline Catholics fondly imagine that if everyone followed Catholic teaching and only had sex within marriage, then there would be no need for contraception or abortion.

In real life of course, this doesn't happen. What I particularly hate about pro-life campaigners (especially the men) is the way they focus on the behaviour of women, as though they were the sole cause of abortion occurring (because - duh! - no man has ever had an abortion.....). I'm happy to be contradicted but I believe that non-consensual sex is a big driver of abortion rates, and I believe that it's the behaviour of men that is the biggest cause of this.

Earlier posters said that they wanted to see more sex education and for GIRLS to be taught self-respect. Hateful Nadine Dorries says that she wants to see lessons in abstinence for girls only. What good will that do them if a man decides he wants to have sex with one of them and won't take no for an answer?

If we want to reduce the rates of abortion (and I do, while firmly supporting a woman's right to have one, regardless of my Catholic faith), then we need to focus on men's behaviour and wider cultural attitudes towards sex. Something that I actually believe the churches could do a lot to influence, if they wanted to.

cloudydays - you said you can't think of an 8 week embryo as a baby. I very much can, having lost three from miscarriages around that stage.

IMO, this is part of the problem with termination not being fully explained to women. I and many other women had/have this mistaken notion that it's "just a clump of cells" when in fact it's clearly forming into a human and has a heartbeat from 6 weeks.

no, thats not a fact, thats your opinion. You can tell the difference?

Its about perception, not facts, and you need to stop assuming your opinion is any kind of objective reality before you can even enter the debate.

That's my issue too Treats. In fact I have had several long discussions with our local priest about this. I have a problem in that largely male and celibate clerics are making decrees about what women can and cannot do.

There was a horrific case three years ago I think in an American Catholic hospital where a mother (11 weeks pregnant) was admitted with severe pulmonary hypertension. Her risk of death if the pregnancy continued was close to 100% according to the docors - the ethics committee approved ending the pregnancy so the life of the mother could be saved. The termination went ahead and she was treated successfully. The Bishop for the area was furious though and excommunicated the Nun who sat on the ethics committee for agreeing to the termination and has now withdrawn Catholic aid from the hospital. The fact that many high ranking Catholic clergy said he "overstepped the mark" the fact is he remains in post and the Nun does not. It always strikes me that she was excommunicated for supporting the saving of a woman's life while some predatory paedophile priests were protected from prosecution for their crimes - NOT the Catholic church's finest hour

Howe can it be wrong to have saved the ONE life which could be saved - that of the mother?

Dilly - that's terrible It's so utterly depressing when the church can't get beyond it's black and white preaching on this issue and consider that the world is vastly more complex. Some people within the church do - clearly the nun you mention puts compassion and respect for human life ahead of dogma - but so many don't.

The trouble with male-dominated institutions (sweeping generalisation alert!) is that they prioritise arse-covering and protecting their reputation over getting things done and doing them properly. The Catholic Church covered up the paedophile priests because it didn't want to harm its reputation, and there are countless other examples, from governments to banks, of problems not being properly dealt with because people didn't want to lose face.

cloudydays - you said you can't think of an 8 week embryo as a baby. I very much can, having lost three from miscarriages around that stage.

goodnightmoon I'm sorry about your losses. To clarify, I didn't say that I couldn't think of an 8 week embryo as a baby, just that I find it difficult, whereas there is no doubt in my mind that a 40-week foetus is most definitely a baby. I meant it more as a means to say that I understand why people feel differently about whether or not a developing embryo has human status, but I cannot fathom how anyone believes that a fully formed, fully functioning, able-to-survive-outside-the-womb 40 week foetus only magically becomes a human person upon passing through the birth canal / cesarean opening.

QuaileQuale were you responding to goodnightmoon when you said "that's not a fact, that's an opinion"? Were you referring to the part of her post that said "in fact it's clearly forming into a human and has a heartbeat from 6 weeks"?

What part of that is opinion? Either your grasp of basic reproductive biology is a bit lacking, or your understanding of the words "fact" and "opinion" is. Whether a human embryo should have the ethical and legal status of a human person, before it has completed its gestation and been separated from the woman, is very much a matter of opinion. Whether a human embryo is something that is in the process of forming into a human person is just kind of a blatantly obvious statement of fact, is it not?

It is also a fact that in some (not all) cases, scans can show embryonic heartbeats from as early as 6 weeks. This isn't pro-life propaganda; there's plenty of that, and much of it is hurtful, inflammatory and based on opinion posing as fact. But these facts are just facts, and to deny them is as blinkered and dogmatic as anything the pro-life zealots come out with, and makes the pro-choice side (with which I align myself) appear equally out of touch with reality.

And to tell anyone at what point they have the right to "even enter the debate" is the height of ignorance and illustrates exactly what's wrong with the extremists on both sides of the issue.

Well that depends on your definition of human, does it not? Amongst other things.

If you can't seperate opinion from fact, which is evidenced by many people on this thread, your contribution to any debate is negligable at best.

What depends on your definition of human? Whether human beings grow from human embryos? And cats grow from cat embryos? And dogs grow from dog embryos?

I'm astounded that you can't seem to acknowledge the fact that human embryos, if they develop at all (i.e. if there's not a miscarriage or abortion) never ever ever develop into anything other than a human being.

That isn't the same thing as saying that it's already a human being at embryonic stage - some people are of the opinion that it is, some people are of the opinion that it isn't. Fair enough. But anyone who can argue that that isn't what it's in the process of developing into, has lost all touch with reality.

I'll stop repeating myself now, because this point is so obvious it's embarassing to have to spell it out.

cloudydays, thanks for your contributions to this thread. I've really found them most thought-provoking.

Actually at six weeks, a human embryo is pretty distinct from a dog embryo or an elephant one. Not that it makes it a baby but there are sufficient differences for that statement not to be an opinion but to be a fact. And I've seen a heartbeat at 6 weeks too (I had fertility treatment so had very early scans).

DaisyHayes thank you for that, I genuinely appreciate it. I've found your comments, and the much of the thread, to be really challenging and thought-provoking too.

I've given in to narkiness in my last couple of comments, but your graciousness has made me want to be reasonable again

the

QualiaQuayle - I too am confused about what you're even referring to, though maybe this thread has died now.

It's a fact that there is a heartbeat in week 6. It's a fact that limbs have formed and small details such as fingernails come just a few weeks later. As said above, it's not going to become anything other than a baby and a human.

For me, those things don't mean abortion shouldn't be performed, or that the developing baby's rights outweigh the woman's, but rather that women should be fully informed about what they are undertaking.

same with deciding to terminate because of birth defects, etc.

"It's a fact that there is a heartbeat in week 6. It's a fact that limbs have formed and small details such as fingernails come just a few weeks later. As said above, it's not going to become anything other than a baby and a human."

Unless it doesn't become a human baby, thats the point. To a great many people its only a potential baby, and to some it is only a potential human, because you are entering the whole "when life begins/what is a person/what makes a human" etc etc debate. All of which is opinion, conjecture, perspective and argument. Not fact.

A foetus at 6 weeks make have a heartbeat, that doesn't mean its alive, and it doesn;t mean it will have a heartbeat at 6.1 weeks. And before anyone jumps in to tell me thats only my opinion, it isn't, as I haven't given my opinion on the matter, I'm merely pointing out that a great many people in this debate confuse their opinions with facts, as clearly evidenced in many posts.